Talk:Earthquake
Level 13+? Just wanted to know, what does 'Level 13+ 10d6 damage' mean? --Chrominium 14:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC) * The max the spell can damage is 60? -- Pstarky 15:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :* I believe so (which seems kind of low for a level 9 spell, although the area of effect is colossal). Shouldnt it be :: :::Level 10+ = 10d6 damage :: ::as it maxes out at the 10th Druid Level. :: ::Although maybe it can be rephrase a little better cause it seems a little random maybe? -- Chrominium 15:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC) ::* Looks like I was wrong (and my suspicions correct), the ingame description shows that the highest damage is 20d6 (120 damage) which seems more like it. In which case the spell maxes out at level 20. Do you think this needs testing? -- Chrominium 15:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::* Ok, I got that information from the Grimorie. The Grimoire could be straight out wrong or one of the patchs since the Grimoire was realised change the max damage on the spell. I would say if the imgame description of the spell says it 20d6, then that would be correct. Your welcome to test it thou. :) -- Pstarky 09:06, 10 Oct 2005 (PDT) ::::* You are right, it is 10d6. It must have gotten change with a patch as it used to be 20d6. It is ridulously low since Fire Storm (two levels below) can do twice as much damage at a lower level. The only advantage is that it doesnt harm the caster, nor does it allow a save by spell resistance. ::::: -- Chrominium 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC) :::::* Yes its a shame its a low damage spell. :( Thanks for checking that out. -- Pstarky 12:00, 10 Oct 2005 (PDT) :::::* And even worse, it hurts dominated animals so they will become hostile again. -- 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Caster level 5? Is there a reason the damage chart begins at caster level 5? The lowest caster level for a level 8 spell is 15, isn't it? --The Krit 09:55, 15 March 2007 (PDT) * not only that, but isn't the spell actually a max of 20d6 according in-game description? Bromium 14:23, 15 March 2007 (PDT) :*No, the in-game description (English, 1.68) says the max is 10d6. (That is also the maximum according to the script.) Admitedly, it doesn't make much sense to cap the caster level below the minimum, but that's what we've got. --The Krit 16:16, 15 March 2007 (PDT) *I've changed the article to account for the minimum caster level. If anyone has an explanation, please speak up. --The Krit 13:05, 6 April 2007 (PDT) *Reason is that the in DnD rules this spell has more effects than damage allowing to kill enemies as well. Bioware however didn't implemented the extra effect, leaving only damage making this spell poor choice for any use. 21:44, June 11, 2012 (UTC) :* So you are saying that because the spell has more effects in D&D, the table for effects within NWN should begin at caster level 5? That makes as little sense as most of your explanations. What I see here is you once again complaining that BioWare did not consult you when designing their game, with the result that their design does not match up with what you want. Get over it or buy the company. Dredging up 5-year-old talk pages is not an appropriate venue for your griping at BioWare. --The Krit 17:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC) ::* Lol no. The old chart is gone anyway and I simply missed the heading. My reply was intented to answer current note that says: "reason why the damage is capped at 10d6 is unknown". Reason is definitely known - the spell has 10d6 in DnD rules as well and we know that NWN is based on DnD 3.0. Bioware simply didn't implemented the rest of the spell that reasons the lower damage. 18:08, June 12, 2012 (UTC) :::* So you are saying that because the spell does 10d6 damage in D&D, BioWare decided to implement 1d6 per caster level with a maximum set below the minimum caster level, with the result being always doing 10d6 damage (hence matching D&D)? Rather than simply implementing level-independent 10d6 damage? Still not making sense here. --The Krit 14:38, July 9, 2012 (UTC) *Though technically 10d6 is not the minimum. Level drain can get it down to the 1d6, and monster abilities can be manually set to these low caster levels as well. WhiZard 03:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC) :* Technically, but then the question would be why did the table only go down to 5 (instead of down to 1). Also, I wouldn't want to bring back the table for such an uncommon case. --The Krit 17:13, June 12, 2012 (UTC)